Lil Judd wrote:
Moe is officially brand new to FredMiranda. Is there any possibility that he's a troll? I don't like calling people that, but every board I visit are inundated with Canon trolls right now. KR seems to be the favorite one to link to for all of them.
I saw KR D300 gallery. He's blowing his red channel & this is the man who considers the 18-200 the ultimate Nikon lens. That alone should disqualify him. The 18-200 is a nice lens - - but it's hardly the ultimate lens.
Lil
I was staying out of this particular discussion but following it all the same.
There is a lot of truth in what Lil suggests.
if KR blows his cred it is over his support for the 18-200. even on my D70s when i can borrow a pro lens, the increase in IQ does not need a pixle peeper.
Tim
PS
Can any one suggest how I make my spaghetti bolognaise without wasting two cups of really nice red wine??
I remember when ISO 400 was fast (film.) Then came Fuji with a nice, almost grain free ISO 800 and many wedding photographers began to use it. Journalists were using Tri-X pushed to EI-1600 with lots of grain and it seemed as if they were happy. We all were looking to medium format enlargements of ISO 400 negatives and although grain was there, we seemed to be happy with those enlargements.
Now we are shooting digital. At ISO 200, irrespective of the camera used, the images are superb. Even ISO 400 yields images that by all standards are noise free, but we are not happy. All of the sudden the most important issue in digital photography is how well our files look at ISO 1600 or above.
I understand how important high ISO performance is for a wedding photographer or a sports photographer but is it for portraits or landscape photography? I look at crops of files from DX cameras at high ISO and although I see noise I find it very pleasant. We look at most of these prints enlarged to large sizes from about 5 feet from them where they even look better. On regard to the full frame or FX as Nikon calls it, the larger size of the file calls for better image quality and I have no questions in my mind about it.
I rarely use ISO 800 in my photography but as I said I perfectly understand there are others who need good high ISO performance. For those who do need high ISO performance a 5D or a D3 are the right tools.
For those of us who do not need high ISO performance and we occasionally use those settings, there are excellent noise reduction softwares that do a superb job.
Just my opinion.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
I am shocked by the sanity and wisdom displayed by the posters at this site.
Well said, all.
As a Nikon user, I have lusted for the 5D's IQ, not just the great noise, but also the skin tones. They just pop and say 5D.
Over the past year, through tweaking in Lightroom and using an Expodisc religiously, I've been able to approach those tones with the D200.
As a D300 owner, I am initially disappointed in the IQ at 800. I was expecting much more, closer to the 5D performance. My first outing with the camera was a major disappointment, I am guessing largely due to user error -- shooting JPG rather than RAW, using 3D metering rather than single area for faces (the camera tracks the clothing, not the face; combined with f/2 lenses, the results were bad).
I bascially got the same results Mr. Rockwell got; mushy images.
I want this camera to be Nikon's 5D, but I suspect that's still down the road. Meanwhile, I have to do all I can to make the D300 give 5D IQ.
The poster who mentioned the fast glass is right on. Unfortunately, Nikon does not shine in this area. There are no fast prime wide angles in production at this time. We desperately need a 24 f/2, 28 f/1.8 and 35 1.4 in AF mounts. Let's hope Nikon addresses this issue. I would much rather put my money in good glass rather than bodies.
Again, thanks all for a great thread and very sane responses.
Jack OBrien wrote:
dj, you're quite wrong in your assessment of negative light. It was once thought that negative light was found only in black holes, but 'dark side' shooters have found that if they turn their lenses around backwards, negative light is transmitted through it. I wouldn't do this when looking at the sun though, instead of burning your retina it will freeze it. Be careful with negative light
Well then I guess I need to link to Kenny's save-all disclaimer then too huh?
Carl Feather wrote:
I want this camera to be Nikon's 5D, but I suspect that's still down the road. Meanwhile, I have to do all I can to make the D300 give 5D IQ.
It's really not that hard to get the D300 images to look like they came from a 5D - a couple of passes with Photoshop's Gaussian blur tool usually does the trick.
Sadly I think the usefulness of the Internet has peaked for me...same old stuff.
"I'm disappointed in the D300; a camera that I don't have and haven't used."
Me...I'm waiting for the D500...the D400 is just not the camera I thought it would be...at least that's what I read.
